Clerk of the US Supreme Court William Suter
The Supreme Court of the United States fails to meet the most fundamental international standards of an honest tribunal.
Los Angeles, February 8 - a United Nations International Crime Prevention Center report lists missing court records as a cardinal sign of judicial corruption. [1] In the Supreme Court of the United States, missing court records are the rule.
In a series of cases from the Supreme Court of the United States, records have been released by Human Rights Alert (NGO), which are invalid notices of purported denial of motions, petitions, and applications filed by individuals in cases involving alleged abuse by government or large corporations. [2]
· The notices issued by office of Clerk William Suter uniformly fail to include any true judicial records.
· The letters are at times issued by unauthorized personnel, or are falsely signed.
Consequently, repeated attempts have been made to access the court file records of the Supreme Court of the United States, to discover if any judicial records existed at all, as the basis for the notices issued by Clerk William Suter.
The right of the public to access court records to inspect and to copy is recognized by the US Supreme Court as a First Amendment right (Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc, 1978). In the English speaking courts it is also held as a Common Law right. Furthermore, it is essential part of Fair Hearings – a fundamental Human Right pursuant to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
· In no case, where access to the paper court files has been permitted, has any valid judicial record ever been discovered, to support the purported notices of denial, issued by the office of Clerk William Suter.
· In a number of cases – access to the paper court files has been denied.
· Repeated requests to access the electronic court files of the Supreme Court of the United States have been denied.
· There is no evidence that public access to the electronic court files of the Supreme Court of the United States has ever been permitted.
The combined evidence is the basis for request, recently filed with US Congress, for impeachment of Clerk William Suter for public corruption, deprivation of rights, and violation of his Oath of Office.
The Supreme Court of the United States fails to meet the most fundamental international standards of an honest tribunal.
LINKS:
[1] 01-03-00 Strengthening Judicial Integrity Against Corruption - UN International Crime Prevention Center
[2] 11-01-25 Request for Impeachment of US Supreme Court Clerk WILLIAM SUTER s
____
Human Rights Alert (NGO)
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Human Rights Alert focuses on the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of the integrity of the justice system in the United States.
http://twitter.com/inproperinla
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
Human Rights Alert is dedicated to discovering, archiving, and disseminating evidence of Human Rights violations by the justice systems of the State of California and the United States in Los Angeles County, California, and beyond. Human Rights Alert focuses on the unique role of computerized case management systems in the precipitous deterioration of the integrity of the justice system in the United States.
http://twitter.com/inproperinla
http://www.scribd.com/Human_Rights_Alert
http://human-rights-alert.blogspot.com/
Don't forget human error too, people do stupid things and make bad decisions.
ReplyDeletePosted 3 hours ago by "SirWally" (R)
Quoted comment: Don't forget human error too, people do stupid things and make bad decisions.
ReplyDeleteDear "SirWally":
Conditions in the Supreme Court of the United States could not possibly be deemed "Human Error" by a reasonable person.
If you read the records in the links at the end of the original posting, you would find there declarations under penalty of perjury by persons who attempted to gain access to US Supreme Court records, but found none, or were simply denied access.
Posted very recently by "jz12345" (R)
So, America does or does not have a Freedom of Information Act?
ReplyDeleteIf they do, who takes the Supreme Court to task for fucking up and losing files or outright corporate corruption and bribery?
If they're not accountable, uh, you're not really living in a free country, guys, what you've gotten yourselves into is a corporate dictatorship.
.
Posted 5 hours ago by "michael567" (R)
Quoted comment: So, America does or does not have a Freedom of Information Act?
ReplyDeleteIf they do, who takes the Supreme Court to task for fucking up and losing files or outright corporate corruption and bribery?
If they're not accountable, uh, you're not really living in a free country, guys, what you've gotten yourselves into is a corporate dictatorship.
.
"Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) is an electronic public access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information from federal appellate, district and bankruptcy courts, and the PACER Case Locator via the Internet. PACER is provided by the federal Judiciary in keeping with its commitment to providing public access to court information via a centralized service."
http://www.pacer.gov/
"The predominant type of record the Federal courts create and maintain is a case file, which contains a docket sheet and all documents filed in a case. There are different ways to obtain the information.
The Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) is an internet-based public access service. This allows users to locate cases using the Case Locator and to obtain case and docket information from Federal appellate, district and bankruptcy courts.
Information on accessing opinions and
case-related documents for the Supreme Court of the United States is available on the court%u2019s website."
http://www.uscourts.gov/CourtRecords.aspx
Posted 4 hours ago by "migs1955" (R)
Quoted comment:
ReplyDeleteQuoted comment: So, America does or does not have a Freedom of Information Act?
If they do, who takes the Supreme Court to task for fucking up and losing files or outright corporate corruption and bribery?
If they're not accountable, uh, you're not really living in a free country, guys, what you've gotten yourselves into is a corporate dictatorship.
.
"Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) is an electronic public access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information from federal appellate, district and bankruptcy courts, and the PACER Case Locator via the Internet. PACER is provided by the federal Judiciary in keeping with its commitment to providing public access to court information via a centralized service."
http://www.pacer.gov/
"The predominant type of record the Federal courts create and maintain is a case file, which contains a docket sheet and all documents filed in a case. There are different ways to obtain the information.
The Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) is an internet-based public access service. This allows users to locate cases using the Case Locator and to obtain case and docket information from Federal appellate, district and bankruptcy courts.
Information on accessing opinions and
case-related documents for the Supreme Court of the United States is available on the court%u2019s website."
http://www.uscourts.gov/CourtRecords.aspx
Good
Posted 4 hours ago by "michael567" (R)
Quoted comment:
ReplyDeleteQuoted comment:
Quoted comment: So, America does or does not have a Freedom of Information Act?
If they do, who takes the Supreme Court to task for fucking up and losing files or outright corporate corruption and bribery?
If they're not accountable, uh, you're not really living in a free country, guys, what you've gotten yourselves into is a corporate dictatorship.
.
"Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) is an electronic public access service that allows users to obtain case and docket information from federal appellate, district and bankruptcy courts, and the PACER Case Locator via the Internet. PACER is provided by the federal Judiciary in keeping with its commitment to providing public access to court information via a centralized service."
http://www.pacer.gov/
"The predominant type of record the Federal courts create and maintain is a case file, which contains a docket sheet and all documents filed in a case. There are different ways to obtain the information.
The Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) is an internet-based public access service. This allows users to locate cases using the Case Locator and to obtain case and docket information from Federal appellate, district and bankruptcy courts.
Information on accessing opinions and
case-related documents for the Supreme Court of the United States is available on the court%u2019s website."
http://www.uscourts.gov/CourtRecords.aspx
Good
BAD, BAD, BAD...
1) "migs1955":
Sorry to say, you provided false information, perhaps inadvertently.
PACER is not used by the Supreme Court of the United States, and no public access system exists in the Supreme Court of the United States that permits the public to see the actual orders or decisions, as signed by justices of the Court.
Moreover, as documented in the links to the original posting, multiple attempts to access the paper court records failed to discover any orders or decisions in the paper court files. When access was requested to the electronic files - access was denied.
2) "michael567":
Access to court records is much more fundamental right than Freedom of Information. The Freedom of Information Act is only a recent law, and it has large loopholes built into it.
* In the US: Access to court records is part of the rights in the First Amendment to the US Constitution.
* In England is it a centuries-old Common Law right.
* In International Law it is part of "Fair Hearings" - a fundamental Human Right.
In all these legal systems, public access to court records is recognized as quintessential for the safeguard of court integrity.
AND THE PROBLEM:
What do you do, when the highest court of the land, a "National Tribunal for Protection of Rights" pursuant to international law, simply ignores the law and Human Rights?
Posted 3 mins ago by "jz12345" (R)
The plot thickens.
ReplyDeleteBad then, got it.
Actually, very bad. And an excellent question which cuts right to the heart of the matter, my intelligent friend: What DO you do when "the highest court in the land simply ignores the both law and human rights?" Are there no "legal" checks and balances in place to prevent such an occurrence?
The founding fathers were fucking brilliant, from my perspective, they must have put something in the constitution providing for this, no?
Or is the constitution really that dead a document now?
Posted 19 mins ago by "michael567" (R)
Dear "michael567":
ReplyDeleteTwo comments:
1) "Are there no "legal" checks and balances in place to prevent such an occurrence?"
The only check and balance provided in the US Constitution for such situation is impeachment.
Therefore, you may notice in the original posting, link was provided to a request, recently filed with the US Congress for impeachment of William Suter, the Clerk of the US Supreme Court, for alleged violation of his Oath of Office.
The Clerk of the US Supreme Court is the custodian of the records of the US Supreme Court, and he took an Oath of Office to "protect and defend the constitution of the united states".
However, the US Congress is notoriously timid when it comes to impeachments. In over 200 years less than 20 US judges have been impeached, while the evidence shows that many, many more deserved that treatment.
Needless to say, conditions that today prevail in the Supreme Court of the United States cannot be reasonably deemed only the fault of the Clerk. There is no way that such conditions could arise absent collusion by the Justices of the US Supreme Court.
However, the Clerk, William Suter, is the one who holds primary accountability for integrity of court records.
2) "Or is the constitution really that dead a document now?"
I leave it for you to judge...
Posted very recently by "jz12345" (R)
America's judiciary is not--and never will be--subject to international law.
ReplyDeletePosted 9 hours ago by "govett" (R)
Quoted comment: America's judiciary is not--and never will be--subject to international law.
ReplyDeleteHow about having the US Judiciary comply with the US Constitution?
We are talking about serious violations of the Amendments to the US Constitution:
a) The First Amendment right to access court records to inspect and to copy, and
b) The Due Process right to Notice and Service of judicial orders and judgment on parties to a given case.
Posted 14 mins ago by "jz12345" (R)
I don't mean human error as the excuse for all the issues, I mean that in some cases when you have people, physically in charge of things, like documents,letters,files,they may handle them incorrectly, shred them , lose them, file them in the wrong place, people make mistakes and bad decisions. We are dealing with actual people and I wonder how much could be error.
ReplyDeletePosted 3 hours ago by "SirWally" (R)
Dear SirWally:
ReplyDeleteA reasonable person, upon review of the facts, would conclude that the what we witness is deliberate violation of the Oath of Office by the Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, not "human errors":
* The issue of access to judicial records is a central issue for integrity of the courts. The issue was also reviewed in various decisions of the US Supreme Court itself. The primary legal reference in this matter is Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978), where the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to access court records as part of the First Amendment.
* Maintaining the records of the Supreme Court, securing their integrity, and conducting his office in compliance with the US Constitution are the main charges of the office of the Clerk.
* Attempts were made at different times to access the judicial record of the US Supreme Court in various unrelated cases.
* Such requests were made in writing, and the letters of requests included reference to the First Amendment right of public access to judicial records pursuant to Nixon v Warner Communications, Inc (1978) and First Amendment rights.
* Access was uniformly denied.
jz
Posted 3 mins ago by "jz12345" (R)